Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 5

Archive 5: July 15, 2006 - Sep 6, 2006

---

To view earlier archives, see:

• Archive 1: May 17, 2004 - Nov 12, 2005
• Archive 2: Nov 12, 2005 - June 29, 2006
• Archive 3: June 29, 2006 - July 13, 2006
• Archive 4: July 13, 2006 - July 24, 2006

• Note also Archive 5.1

---

Introduction to Article

The fact that "A Course in Miracles" is sometimes referred to as "ACIM" or simply "The Course" is not original research. It is common knowledge for anyone who is at all familiar with ACIM. We are using these abbreviations in our discussions here. I have already posted this in these discussions and it was deleted. Please do not delete or change discussion material posted by others.--Who123 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All you are saying is that based on the opinion of several editors here on WP that the statement is true. That in itslef is pure original research by defintion. I will mark the section disputed. Consider the section disputed. Adding a tag would be confusing. Also keep in mind that the statement itself about "ACIM" is confusing since an equal statement could be made "Foundation for Inner Peace" is sometimes referred to as "ACIM" by the same reasoning as you suggest for the statement; i.e. original research. Ste4k 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote from another WP article: "The Internet (also known simply as the Net)..." Internet. Do you consider this OR as well? I and two other editors do not consider this OR. Once again, it is common knowledge for anyone who is at all familiar with ACIM. The "Foundation for Inner Peace" is not referred to as "ACIM", it is referred to as "FIP". I am finding your remarks and edits pedantic (unduly emphasizing minutiae) and obstructive. You have stated that you have little or no knowledge of ACIM. Perhaps your editing time would be better served in an area where you do have some knowledge?--Who123 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to go work on the other article, that's fine. It is up to you and/or the other editors to demonstrate that it is not OR, not up to me to remove OR from the article. As mentioned earlier, this is disputed. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR,WP:DR,WP:VER, and WP:RS. Ste4k 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the WP policies. The problem is that you are applying them in an obsessive manner that obstructs rather than advances the article. Your use of these policies is to carry them to the extreme. Once again, look at these articles as two examples: Bible Internet.--Who123 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing obsessive about the correct use of article maintenance templates. The specific use of this discussion area is designated to discuss the article "a course in miracles" rather than opinions about other articles. Ste4k 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is not about article maintenance templates. It is about the Introduction of the article.--Who123 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited first line of intro to make it clearer and hopefully resolve conflicts.--Who123 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is now no longer quoted from a reliable secondary source. Ste4k 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is advertising for the publisher instead. Ste4k 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it read as an advertisement, but there's no need to mention one publisher in the intro. I removed it, but I think we should cover the various publishers and editions in a later section. -Will Beback 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k keeps bringing up the notability of this and other ACIM articles. I think it helps to address the notability issue. Ste4k did not object and thought it was fine as long as it was part of her stub article. I hope you do not mind but I am going to revert. If we cannot even come to agreement on this simple introduction I do not see how the more complex issues can be resolved.--Who123 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not revert. I see that you kept the notability but just removed the particular publisher. Looks good.--Who123 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction of ACIM

I see that there was a very slight change in the title. It is slight but I think it needs to be reverted. This is not an introduction to the book. It is part of the book itself. It is therefore the introduction of the book.--Who123 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Course Versions

Please allow me to present some initial information on the formation of The Course and the three primary versions to the best of my ability. This can then act as a platform for discussion. The Course began as a cooperative venture between two well respected psychologists. Helen began to hear an inner voice. She called Bill and they both devoted much of their lives over many years to bring the "dictation" of this inner voice to paper. Most of the "dictation" was written by Helen in notebooks with her own style of shorthand. She then either typed it herself or read it to Bill who typed it. It appears that some of the material Helen spoke to Bill and he typed this directly.

The earliest typed version that is known to exist is called the Urtext. The Urtext itself appears to have been derived from at least three earlier typed versions. Some of this material may be lost to time. ACIM consists of three parts: Text, Workbook, and Manual for Teachers. The vast majority of differences are in the Text.

In the Urtext "the voice" designated Bill as the editor. In late 1972 Bill finished the editing of all three parts. The Text portion was found in the A.R.E. Library and has come to be known as the HLC (Hugh Lynn Cayce) version. This is perhaps a poor name as HLC had no known input to the material although he is mentioned in it. Bill added Chapter and Section breaks and deleted material.

In early 1973, I believe, Ken Wapnick was given a copy. He further edited the material to form the Criswell version and subsequently the FIP first edition often known as the "blue book". There may have been other variations involved. The second edition contains additional material and an outline numbering system which is still under a valid copyright.

Since then there are now multiple variations both in print and online that stem from these three primary versions.

Despite much sometimes heated debate, all three versions seem to contain the essential material of The Course. Some prefer one version and some use all three.--Who123 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you could provide sources for these. Thanks. Ste4k 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading this book referenced in the article would be a start:

Wapnick, Kenneth (1999). Absence from Felicity: The Story of Helen Schucman and Her Scribing of A Course in Miracles (2d ed.). New York: Foundation for A Course in Miracles. ISBN 0-933291-08-6. Discusses Helen Schucman and the pre-publication history of ACIM.Who123 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion regarding versions of ACIM. I believe the article should address this in a short topic. I suggest this as a starting point:

---

There are three primary versions of The Course. These are the Urtext, the HLC, and the FIP first edition. There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic". The Urtext is the earliest publicly known version. Within the Urtext Dr. William Thetford was the designated editor. The HLC is the version edited by Bill and completed in late 1972. He added the organization of the chapters and sections. Unfortunately, original material was removed. The FIP first edition was a further edit of the HLC by Ken Wapnick. Some material was changed and some was deleted. In addition, FIP released a second edition. This second edition includes additional material and an outline numbering system. The additional material and the outline numbering system remain under copyright.

---

There has been a long discussion here on sourcing. Sourcing for this addition includes the works themselves as well as the already referenced "Absence from Felicity".--Who123 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't mentioned any version from the Endeavor Academy at all. I suggest that you look at that article and check it for accuracy. Apparently it is pointing to this article on the premise that the version of "A Course in Miracles" written by Charles Anderson is directly related to these three versions. In my opinion, that link is ambiguous and misleading. If you disagree, then you might want to add the category cult to this article as it is listed in the other. Ste4k 03:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noted your addition and although it reads well, etc. It is completely unsourced. I am removing it until such a time that you can supply references. There isn't any sense in adding additional unsourced material to a very long document in the process of being pruned for verification reasons. Ste4k 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The EA version is new. It is included in "There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic"." I see no point in this article in discussing all of the derivations from the three primary versions. If this is thought to be useful then a separate article can be written on this. I appreciate the complement about the addition reading well. The addition was sourced from the primary works and the existing references. Because there is confusion about these primary versions, I believe it is an important addition. I do not appreciate your removing it. If you wanted more source material you could simply have added a comment. It is beginning to appear to me that you simply wish to obstruct work on this article.--Who123 04:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 You should understand plainly the reason that it was removed. I certainly agree that it might help balance the article, but it would take much more than simply a mention, and all material added to this article needs to be cited. Ste4k 06:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that it was removed seems to be your attempt to do anything you can to obstruct this article. It was a concise, well written (by your own words) summary. It was cited.--Who123 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am incredibly concerned that, after the extensive discussion on this talk page about the importance of sources and general agreement that work should be done on the problems with the sourcing of the existing text that a new section was added that was completely unsourced. [1] As if there aren't enough links to these policies on this page already: WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS. These are required policies, not optional suggestions, for creating content here. JChap (Talk) 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This was added in part because of the confusion regarding the versions in this discussion. It was not "completely unsourced". I will not attempt to add the section again until more of the current issues are resolved particularly in regard to sources, citations, and references.--Who123 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• The only cite in the diff says "(see primary works and references)." Am I missing something? JChap (Talk) 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The primary works are primary sources. I think we can either change this or add better sourcing later. I think it helps with some of the confusion. Having it is better than not having it. May I ask people to indulge me on this one small addition for now?--Who123 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This book is a primary resource and including it would basically be using a self-published resource from the publisher. Ste4k 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll on Where to Start

Please see edit wars above. There are two ideas on how to begin this project. One is that we begin with the current very short article (stub). The other is that we begin with the original article in the last reversion by Will Beback.

Please sign all comments with ~~~~

Which version of this article should we start with after it is unlocked?

Current Stub Article

(votes and comments please)

Original Article

(votes and comments please)

• Original Article per my prior comments: essentially Wikipedia:Policy trifecta, meta:Inclusionism. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Original Article. I have given this a great deal of thought considering both options (as well as starting with a blank page). This is my vote for several reasons. The first is the reader. I believe we should provide the reader with the best information we have at present. The second reason is that someone has put a great deal of time and energy into writing the article in the first place. I do not think we need to waste time and energy by reinventing the wheel. I would prefer to start with what we have and improve it.--Who123 02:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Other

(votes and comments please)

Comments

The last thing we need right now is another poll with loaded wording. Let's see, would you rather have a "very short" article or the "original" one? Let's do research and then write. Wikipedia articles don't need to be built in a day. JChap (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you find the wording loaded? It seems simple and clear. It sounds like this is a vote for "other". Do you wish to remove the current stub and start from scratch? I think this is the first thing we need to decide, not the last.

Results

Although it is difficult to come up with solid results based on only 3 votes, it appears the vote is to restore the original article. When this is combined with the recent comment of someone passing by I am going to do so.

This is certainly open for additional voting and discussion.--Who123 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to come up with results based on a loaded poll with only two people voting, a "random" passerby and most of the editors who work on this page distracted by an RfC. You shouldn't have acted unilaterally to revert only 30 minutes after unprotection. The passerby's comments may apply to the version he was commenting on, but it is also an accurate descrption of the current version, which is unsourced and full of POV. Do you have a plan that has a realistic chance of fixing that? If not we should just do the page over, starting with research and then writing, with close citation. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Related RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k includes mention of activity on this article. Interested users are invited to comment. -Will Beback 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Worst article in all of Wikipedia

I came to this page looking for more information about this book and I'm really embasassed for Wikipedia after reading it. Considering how much discussion has taken place on the talk page, the article is tiny and extremely poorly written. The first sentence should at least give an idea of WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE. The external links should at very least include www.acim.org. I vote this as the worst article in all of Wikipedia. Excuse me while I go vomit. Cacophony 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This page has undergone some major changes lately.

An older version might have more information for you. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of the poll and this comment I have restored the article as per the last restore per Will Beback.--Who123 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How Do We Proceed From Here?

What is our next step? --Who123 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We should agree on an outline for the article and then do research. I am not happy with the current version of the article for reasons we have already discussed. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to go in this direction. Would you be interested in starting this in another page under the archives section at the top?--Who123 00:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just archived the material not under current discussion. I have left some unnessary material on how we arrived at this point.--Who123 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See "Course Versions" section. I would like permission to include the small portion between the lines to the article.--Who123 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if after citations to reliable sources have been included. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should next proceed with the "Merged articles" section. Suggestions?--Who123 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The real problem with the article continues to be its POV and its lack of sourcing. We should fix these problems before proceeding. If the article doesn't show significant improvement in these respects in a week, I am inclined to revert to Guy's last version and just start over. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article should comply with WP's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research policies. I am not convinced yet that it does not. References are cited. Although some claim that the article does not comply (and they may be correct), many of the references are books. How many have obtained these books in order to refute them?

Setting an artificial time limit is, IMO, unrealistic. The person who has written many of the ACIM articles reports that he is about to be married. It will take time. I do not think we need to be in a rush here, I think we need to get it right.

I do not think we want to begin edit wars again by reverting to a blank page. If someone wishes to write their own article then perhaps that could be done on another page.

I think stating what the "real problem" is, is a POV. My first concern is retrieving missing information.--Who123 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Very few passages contain citations. These need to be fixed. Much of it is classic OR. Example: Unique aspects of ACIM. Who thinks they are unique? Unless this has been published in a secondary source, it is OR and inappropriate for inclusion here. If you would like to work from the existing text, I could put tags in where citation is needed and you could go through and find citations for this material. Anything uncited in a month would be subject to removal. If you want to proceed on the basis of the existing text, I think this is a fair compromise. I would prefer to start over. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not write this article. I am interested in preserving the information. From Wikipedia:Notability see:

The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance).

It seems that the fund raising page should be honored.

I am not interested in assuming responsibility for providing citations to your satisfaction. This has been a long standing stable article. I do not see the danger in taking our time and doing it right. I do see a danger in depriving the reader from useful information. It is so much easier to create than destroy.--Who123 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that it is, in fact, information (as opposed to speculation, conjecture, etc.) because it isn't cited and cannot be verified. Once citations are provided and it can be verified, then let's call it information. Also, the standards to which you refer aren't mine, they are found in WP:CITE. A month is more than generous as a timeframe. If the material can be sourced, the work can be done in a month. I'm not an enemy of the article. I want to have a strong article that meets WP criteria and will work with you on citing. Obviously the Course itself can be a source. Do you have anything else I can look at? JChap (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Except that the book cannot be a source for things like "unique aspects", terminological misunderstandings, practical study and lifestyle... well, you get the idea. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should wait for the resolution of the RfC and the RfA with the involved editors. As Scott Perry is a major contributor, perhaps we should allow him the chance to enjoy his upcoming wedding. I suggest this be placed on hold for now.--Who123 15:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• The whole thing's turned into a circus. No argument there. I think we can leave material in until that has died down and Scott gets back. I would like to proceed in the meantime trying to source the article and adding a section discussing ACIM's impact. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not been involved in a RfC before so I do not know how this compares to others. You had asked me about the references. I think (as has already been mentioned) they will be hard to come by. I think the various versions are primary sources. The Urtext has not been published in book form that I am aware of, only on the net. I think "Wapnick, Kenneth (Apr1991). Absence from Felicity. Foundation for a Course in Miracles. 0-933291-08-6." is an excellent source. Wapnick arrived on the scene shortly after the HLC version was finished. He is one of the few people still alive from the early days. In the stub article, Ste4k included one court document that I recall. When I tried to check its source I was taken to the court site for that district of NY. I did not see the pdf file. There are numerous court documents that would be good secondary sources. Do you know if they are online at the NY court site?

I have not studied the article in detail. Do you think it would be useful to start from the beginning and go through it a section at a time? I think this approach might be fun.--Who123 20:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Step 1 has to be to remove anything which is uncited and reads like original research. As far as I can tell that's everything after the History section. Just zis Guy you know? 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We should make it clear how anything we say is either cited or follows very trivially from simple laws of logic. Afterall, other articles don't have to cite extremely basic laws of logic to back up what they say. Logic is taken for granted. I say we take logic for granted here as well. In that case, we will need to cite and reference that ACIM does actually say that its fundemental doctrine is that only what is coherent is real. Everything else will either be a simple corollary, or be cited. A lot of this article follows via trivial logical laws, but what doesn't should be removed. That way, there won't be original research, and the article will be compliant. This appears to be a small task, however. Most of the article follows from very simple logic, and repeats itself many many times. According to Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Can anyone make the argument that our repeating ourselves so many times is bad? If not, I don't know what many editors are talking about when they carry on about original research. In most cases, if you show me were it is, I'll show you how it is a trivial corollary of what has already been said, and if you dispute it, you must dispute the original cited principle the Course endorses. But if you dispute it, you must dispute that the source doesn't actually say what it says, and that's why we have references, so you can look it up yourself. Alright! Does everyone understand now? I did recently vote to keep original research in this article but now I see that Wikipedia can't allow this. Fortuanatly, almost none of it is original research. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy refers to material in different articles. Obviously, one article should not repeat itself. As the reader I want to be able to read a concise description of the subject. That's what an encyclopedia article is. If none of the material is original research, {{sofixit}} by citing to sources. An additional problem with much of it is that it reads like a tract. As I discuss below, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that in the abstract, it just does not belong on WP. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough ... apply the guideline to sections then, which seems natural. Material from different sections may overlap, and this should be okay. This will also explain our article's length to some extent. And I agree, an article in an encylopedia should contain just enough information to allow the reader to understand the cited point. It's natural to dedicate an uncited sentence to explaining an obvious point, which despite its obviousness, some miss anyway. Sometimes it takes a number of sentences to make the material further accessable, even though the point explained might be considered obvious. Surely WP should be very very accessable, though, and so it may take a great many sentences to say the same thing enough times in enough ways to get everyone onboard, and yet none of it would be original research because it is saying the same thing in different ways. None of it is new or original. None of it would be unique synthesis or analysis or new ideas, statements, or concepts. What would be the point of an article on ACIM if it was not accessable enough to get most people onboard with the one a priori statement that is not even different in the first place, being a priori. If you are not agreeing, it must mean I need to write even more statements of the exact same nature, not fewer. Somehow the audience is not understanding the (should be) cited point. An enclyclopedia should put cited points in context that they can be seen as coherent and understandable, and yet we are still not one in our understanding. Ah, we must need more explanitory material. Original research would just make new points to add to the confusion and would be totally counterproductive. How could we hope to understand one point if I kept adding new ones? That's why we have to stick to a single point, as most of the article (which to you might seem uncited for your thinking they are new points) does. The point is that they are not new points. That's the point. Are you seeing now how your claim that much of the article is original research is making much of the article look like original research to you? How this is what it means to beg the question? —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your response to my point about not repeating things was itself repetitive. Perhaps this was intended as a joke ;-)? Anyway,

1. Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy says that articles, not different sections of the same article, can "overlap" in terms of the information they provide. Per general rules of good writing, the same article should not repeat itself. Remember, the reader of an encyclopedia article doesn't want to read the same information over and over again. A well-written article will convey information clearly and concisely.
2. The point of the article shouldn't be to "get everybody on board" with ACIM, but to explain its beliefs and impact. It's an encyclopedia article, not a tract. (Now I'm repeating myself.)
3. Any "further explanation" of a cited point should come from other sources. Surely, there have been books explaining all this.

I am happy to see you working on the article. Perhaps you and other ACIM students could work on explaining ACIM beliefs (in line with WP:CITE of course) while the rest of us could start on secondary source material to discuss the movement's history/impact? JChap (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On point 1, you are right that a section is not an article. I was appealing to the motive for the guideline, rather than the guideline itself. Hopefully we would anticipate how particular instances of something could be generalized. If the rule is that twice twenty apples is forty apples, hopefully we could also say that twice twenty apple slices is forty apple slices without dispute that the rule strictly has to do with whole apples. Yes, it says apples and not apple slices. Now I'm going to generalize appropriately, noting that the rules that apply to a good article apply to a good section. However, I think we will notice that this is not important to make my overall point. Tell me if I'm wrong, but you are thinking that how dare I use guidelines misleadingly to promote a viewpoint. It is good that that is not what I am doing, because I don't like to see them misused either. Again on point 1, if it were true that the reader of an encyclopedia did not want to read the same information in more than one way, an encylopedia would have no use for analogies, cross-referencing, examples, or other material used to disambiguate and sharpen what is being said. Although the explanitory material is repetitive, that does not mean it does not serve a clear function. A sharp idea has multiple associations with other things, because that is what it means to understand something as I'm sure you can verify in your own experience. We agree that what serves no function to aid the understanding in an encyclopedia has no use, so it is good that this does not apply to much of what is said in this article. On point 2, you will discover upon inspection that I did not say that an encyclopedia article on ACIM should get everyone on board with ACIM, whatever that means for you. An encyclopedia article should get everyone on board with understanding the very beliefs and impacts you believe an encyclopedia should explain. It is good we agree. On point 3, you are thinking that when I talk about further explaination, that I am refering to original material because I am making new points. If I was making new points in my further explanations, I would certainly need additional sources. You will find that I have already said that I am not making any new points. If I can cite that all apples are fruits, I am not making a new point in explaining this by saying that if I had an apple, I would have a fruit. It is an immediate logical and evident consequence, yet you must be thinking that if I make such a claim, all immediate logical and evident consequences would be evident without mentioning them. If that was true, then everyone would find mathematics to be utterly easy and trivial, but this is not the case. On your proposal, I don't know what the difference is between an ACIM student and a non-ACIM student, so I don't know how you are coming to the conclusion that I am one, and that you are not. However, I will naturally help were I think help is wanting. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

<--

I did not think you were being intentionally misleading, I was just disagreeing with your interpretation of the policy. We seem to be talking about some of these issues in the abstract. It could be more useful to talk about them in reference to specific passages in the article, when they come up. And I get your point about their being no distinction between an ACIM student and a non-ACIM student, because "ACIM is a required course," right. ;-) I was suggesting that we might more efficiently use our time if people who are already familiar with the Course itself concentrate initially on the section on its teachings while those of us without such knowledge should start on the history and impact sections. Let me know if this is acceptable to you. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. That makes sense. And I want to thank you for all the work you've already done on this article. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Supposedly, the author worked from sources but just did not cite those sources. If people familiar with the teachings are able to go through and put in the correct citations, I'm inclined to let them do so. I've just gone over the article again and it appears that parts of it describe the basic teachings, albeit with titles like "unique aspects" and "comparisons." If this is true and they could be scrubbed of any OR synthesis, the material might be acceptable in a "Beliefs" section. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have studied the article in some detail. I have to concur with Guy that at least some and perhaps most of it is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. No comment on its general quality, you understand. I have looked around a bit and think there is sufficient secondary source material to write an article on this subject. The article should focus on the beliefs of ACIM and its history and impact. The current version of the article reads more like a recruitment tool, inviting people who may be interested in one of the ACIM organizations to "refer to the external links below." Religions have every right to prozelytize and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's just not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that there may be some misconceptions about ACIM. I do not believe that it is a religion in the traditional sense. The book itself is not a collection of Doctrine (Where are the sources and citing? Should this article be marked as OR?). The book is about transformation. It is about transformation so that we realize the truth or the reality of our own nature or identity as well as the truth or reality of all that is. This is a transformation that takes place now, not some time in the future or after the death of the body.--Who123 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be spinning our wheels here. I am going to read the article a section at a time and post it as a new section. If I make an edit I will document it and we can discuss it. I am not good at how to cite sources and do not know how the WP software works so I will just put it in parenthesis for now. Hoe does that sound?--Who123 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

History + Litigation

I think we can pull these from the stub article by Ste4k. I do not know how to do the references. Can someone do this?--Who123 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved Ste4k's stub article to replace the Introduction + Litigation. Can someone fix the references?--Who123 03:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Doctrinal Highlights of ACIM

Removed the word "Unique".--Who123 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to "A Course in Miracles"

Moved up and removed OR. This is now a direct quote from ACIM.--Who123 03:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Aspects of ACIM's Spiritual Belief System

Now the sourcing gets difficult. Other than a little fine tuning I think this is correct. Are the books in the references acceptable sources?--Who123 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go with those unless and until we have better sources from outside the movement. The changes you have made are striking and go a long way towards what I was hoping for: well done! Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much! I did not know if I was going in the right direction or not.--Who123 22:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is much improved. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Several Concerns Before Proceeding

I have several concerns before proceeding:

1. If we assume good faith on the part of the original author, all of the material in the article is in the cited sources. I have learned that it is much easier to destroy rather than create. All it seems to take is one editor to come along to destroy the article without even obtaining the cited sources. Are the books already cited acceptable to WP? If they are, why should I spend the time and money to buy the books to verify/improve the article only to have it destroyed again by a single editor in the future?

2. If I decided to buy the references and improve the article, I will need help. I do not understand the WP citing system at this point.

3. To my knowledge, there are two major authors that write on the material in ACIM itself. These are Wapnick (FACIM) and Perry (Circle of Atonement). I have not checked but I suspect that they have written books on an introduction to ACIM. Would these be acceptable to WP?

Thanks--Who123 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You raise some valid concerns. My best advice is to read WP:RS and make your own judgements on how you think it applies to a source. However, I can give you my thoughts. On point one, WP:AGF is usually applied to conversations between editors on talk pages. I have never heard it suggested that it should replace WP:CITE. Somewhat inconveniently, WP:RS does specifically cover what is and is not considered a reliable source in articles about religious subjects. Generally, I would think that books or other sources published by the religious organization itself are reliable sources as to what beliefs the organization promotes or teaches. Also, WP:RS#Self-published_sources would seem to apply, so anything self-published could be relied on for information about history and impact, but the material would have to be treated cautiously and preferrably verified by independent sources. Some of the sources seem independent and a few seem critical. Independent sources are the best, but someone with a personal bias is less reliable than someone who simply looked at the available material and made an independent judgement. If a biased source is used, its assertions may have to be qualified. However, for all I know, the critical sources are simply people who looked at ACIM (or religion in general) and didn't like what they saw. To respond to your further concerns under point one, I have found that it is generally difficult to remove material that is well-cited. The reason that material in previous versions of the article (and related merged articles) was vulnerable was that it was not cited. As to point two, I would advise putting your sources in parentheses in the text. This is acceptable under WP:CITE or any editor can make a references section if he or she desires using these cites. On point three, I think these would be great resources for the section on ACIM beliefs. I hope that this has been helpful. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thank you. It seems just when we are beginning to make progress, Ste4k obstructs it. Ste4k stated the introduction was good when it was part of his/her stub article. Now that his/her stub article has been brought into the main article he/she states it is not acceptable. I do not see how any progress can be made on this or any ACIM article as long as he/she is allowed to edit.--Who123 04:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your assessment of this situation, based only on a few weeks of editing in the project may be not grounded. I also find as your tone of voice and choice of words to be somewhat innapropriate. A friendly advice, please remain WP:CIVIL in your comments. Ste4k 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My assessment and "tone" are based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k and on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harassment_and_Wiki-stalking. I find your editing behavior inapropriate. I suggest WP:CIVIL has some lessons for you.--Who123 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An aside - some of the sections appear to be duplicated. -Will Beback 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of this. My thought is to proceed from the begining to the end of the article. As this is done the duplicate sections can be reviewed and addressed.--Who123 04:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Like all articles, this is "live". It is confusing for readers (not to mention editors) to have duplicate sections in different places. The duplication should be removed as soon as possible. -Will Beback 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to help. As I said, I do not understand the WP reference system. Perhaps someone who does could fix it?--Who123 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the biggest problem areas is the duplicate nature of the ACIM highlights section and the Comparisons...:Christianity:Theological differences section. One is almost necessarily a variant of the other. How should we procede? —Antireconciler ◊ talk 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have ordered several books about ACIM so that I can help with the citing. I am waiting for these. I have not compared the two sections. It seems that the Highlights section should focus on ACIM and the Comparison with Christianity focus on that. It seems there may be some overlap but I do not see this as a problem. Although ACIM has elements of philosophy, psychology, and theology; I believe it is primarily about transformation. I am in a holding pattern until the books arrive.--Who123 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, ACIM includes elements of theology, psychology, and philosophy. Ultimately these work together toward its goals of psycho-spiritual transformation. ACIM is teaching us to perceive in a completely different way. I wonder if we need to do some re-writing to address all 4 aspects of ACIM in different sections? The comparison with Christianity would fall within the Theology section.--Who123 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate References

The article has duplicate reference sections based on the merge. Can someone that knows the WP citing system merge the first reference section with the notes section using the WP system?--Who123 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Antireconciler ◊ talk, thanks for fixing the references!--Who123 00:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Restructure of part of the Article

I wonder if the article should be re-structured along these lines:

ACIM Highlights

The Introduction of the book

Common terminological misunderstandings

Theology

Comparison to traditional Christianity

Comparison to the New Thought Movement

Psychology

Philosophy

Psycho-spiritual transformation

Everything will need to be sourced and cited. ACIM is a primary source. The other references are secondary sources.

Thoughts?--Who123 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On the surface this looks like a good idea. I'd like to know more about what you have in mind when you mention Psychology and Philosophy and Psycho-spiritual transformation, and how parts of the current article would fall into these categories. For example, I'm not sure what content could fall into the area of psychology, as opposed to the others, and I'm not sure how philosophy can be distinguished from psycho-spiritual transformation. I take the division to mean that you will compare aspects of ACIM to various philosophies/movements in the philosophy section, but when you arrive at psy-trans, what you have left will still be theology, philosophy, and perhaps psychology, but perhaps at a more abstract level. And what can we say then that won't fall back into these other categories?—Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I begin, thanks for fixing the references!

This is just a thought. It was brought about by several factors including your comments. The reference books will probably not arrive for 7-10 days and then I need to read them. Whatever is written must not be OR. From reading what people have written here, I get the impression that those not familiar with ACIM think it is a book of theology that is just supposed to be believed. It does have its theological elements but the reader is not asked to accept them on faith. I think the psychological elements are centered around the nature of the ego and how it uses attack, fear, anger, guilt, and projection to maintain our perception of separation. The philosophy section can be brief as ACIM does present reality as mentalistic monism. I think the heart of ACIM is its transformative aspects. This combines the theology and psychology presented in the Text with the lessons of the Workbook to transform our perception of the world. Does this help?--Who123 00:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just be careful not to engage in WP:NOR. Best would be to find reliable sources that discuss and explore the points you mention. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as stated above. Whatever we decide to do will be mainly from secondary sources as well as some material from the primary source (ACIM). What I am proposing here is not OR. From the Preface to the second edition:

"The curriculum the Course proposes is carefully conceived and is explained, step by step, at both the theoretical and practical levels. It emphasizes application rather than theory, and experience rather than theology. It specifically states that a universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary (Manual, p. 77)." ([2])

Hopefully, this will be a collaborative venture. Jossi, at a minimum, I hope you will be looking over our shoulder to ensure that everything we do is in accord with WP policy. I hope that when we are done we will have an excellent WP article on ACIM.—Who123 13:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

I have moved this up to just after the Introduction of the Course. It is completely re-written and cited.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions?—Who123 18:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical idealism and the New Thought Movement

I just looked over this section. I do not see that it is very important to ACIM except for the basic philosophy. Perhaps it should be moved up with a few words on the basic philosophy? Thoughts?—Who123 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is A Course in Miracles?

I have added this new section to the article to give the reader an idea of what ACIM is at the beginning. I know it adds to the length but hopefully the article size will be reduced as we remove redundant material. I have recently ordered the book on which this is based and read this chapter. Fortunately, Perry provides this chapter of the book on-line as well, so the reader has access to the full chapter. I think this significantly improves the article. I am not a writer so I would appreciate some help with improving this new section.—Who123 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Through a recent edit I noticed there is an article on Esoteric Christianity. This does not fit ACIM. Two definitions for "esoteric" from the dictionary do fit:

- difficult to understand

- of special, rare, or unusual interest

ACIM is an unusual interest and is difficult to understand.—Who123 00:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this summary of Perry's treatment of the book is much too long and not proper for an encyclopedic entry. Perry's book should be cited, but not summarized here. This article is about ACIM, not Perry's description of it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Will shorten.—Who123 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure of article

The structure of the article was very disorganized. I have re-ordered it along the broad outline of:

I. Introductory material

II. Theology

III. Psychology

IV. End material

I hope this organization makes more sense. I will continue to work on the material from beginning to end. As always, helpful input is desired.—Who123 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion Catagory

I do not understand why the article was removed from the religion category.—Who123 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's already in religious categories. —Ashley Y 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. It's already in the appropriate subcategories. —Ashley Y 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Critical reviews - Negative

I see there is some interest in this section. I have not progressed this far in the article yet but will move my research to this area. Perhaps best to begin with:

Cult allegations

I think the first place to start is to examine the source: The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad. One reviewer at Amazon notes:

"there are some real problems here. Kramer & Alstad don't document a single thing they say, other than to refer to their other equally undocumented essays. Thus, ironically, this screed against authoritarianism must be accepted as the raw authoritarian assertion of the authors' views. It functions just like the type of revelation they condemn."

"I'm not convinced they understand the inner spiritual and moral dynamics of either Buddhism or Christianity as well as they try to make themselves appear to ... I felt that at many points Kramer and Alstad were dealing in the fantasies of their own stereotypes and straw persons about these beliefs. They don't seem as widely read as they claim..."

Patrick Miller in The Complete Story of the Course also states that the Kramer & Alstad book is not sourced. When Miller attempted to contact Kramer & Alstad about their writing he received a letter from Alstad that included:

"we are not interested in involving ourselves in a dialogue about the value of A Course in Miracles."

I conclude that The Guru Papers is not a reliable source.

If we turn to the Course itself the Preface states:

"It [the Course] is not intended to become the basis for another cult. Its only purpose is to provide a way in which some people will be able to find their own Internal Teacher."

"At the end, the reader is left in the hands of his or her own Internal Teacher."

I conclude that calling ACIM a cult is unfounded. I will, therefore, remove the material. It is, as always, open for discussion.—Who123 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Other material

The remaining source is Miller's The Complete Story of the Course. In this book Miller devotes two chapters to Negative reviews. The first chapter is focused on comments from traditional Christianity. To sum up this chapter there are differences in the theology of traditional Christianity vs. ACIM. Miller quotes this passage from ACIM, however:

"All terms are potentially controversial, and those who seek controversy will find it. Yet those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however, be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a delaying maneuver. Theological considerations as such are necessarily controversial, since they depend on belief and can therefore be accepted or rejected. A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary. It is this experience toward which the course is directed. Here alone consistency becomes possible because here alone uncertainty ends."

Miller's second chapter discusses criticism from "anti-authoritarian thinkers." He states that "these critics have apparently conducted far less through analysis and are unwilling to discuss their published conclusions." After studying the chapter in detail I could not find any valid negative reviews. Miller concludes by writing, however:

"we still lack any exhaustive, reasonably impartial assessments of the quality of this new guide to transformation."

I suspect this is perhaps true of any spiritual path. I will therefore remove the other unsourced material from the article.—Who123 17:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

faithfreedom.org article

This is a new source. I wonder if we could have some discussion on whether it is a reliable source per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article is not entirely factually correct. It seems to be just the personal opinion of the author. The author seems to wish ACIM to conform to facts as used in science. The subject of religion/spirituality, perception, emotions, as well as many arts, do not fall within the realm of science. A quote from Albert Einstein: "The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical."

The Brainwashing article states:

"Brainwashing, also known as thought reform or re-education, is the application of coercive techniques to change the beliefs or behavior of one or more people usually for political or religious purposes. Whether any techniques at all exist that will actually work to change thought and behavior to the degree that the term "brainwashing" connotes is a controversial and at times hotly debated question."

ACIM is not coercive. One choses it or not. The article raises the question as to whether "brainwashing" even works.

I do not think it is a reliable source. What do others think?—Who123 12:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been editing the section "negative criticisms". The citation that "many see it as brainwashing" is a very generalized statement that could (though should not) appear in a criticism of any or all faiths or spiritual disciplines. Negative criticisms of the Course should be relegated to thoughtful discourse regarding the content of the material or ways it is practiced, not blanket rejections by the religious. My recollection is that K. Wapnick (not a fan) and a priest co-wrote a book wherein they discourse regarding the differences between differences between Christianity and ACIM. Might such a book provide insightful criticisms of the Course that would befit this section of the article? - Joe091174 ...p.s. I'm very new at wiki editing, posting, etc.

I agree that "many see it as brainwashing" is not supported by the citation. The citation is the POV of one person who makes at least one factually incorrect statement elsewhere in the "article". He says it is brainwashing because people are asked to repeat thoughts. The citation points out that this is how children learn. Adults learn by repetition too. The citation seems to be saying that learning by repetition is brainwashing. This is not meaningful. I will remove it based on all of these comments.

I am fairly new to WP editing too and am trying to learn how to do it better. The discussion between Wapnick and the priest is summarized in the Miller book. It and other comments in the Miller book are the basis of the one valid negative criticism: the theology of ACIM and traditional Christianity differ. The book may be helpful in the theology section of the article. I have ordered 4 or 5 of the book references in order to try to improve the article. Do you have the Wapnick book? I might order it as well to try to better reference the theology section. Please let me know what you think of the book and/or use it to improve the theology section.—Who123 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Critical Reviews - Negative - "defenders of the faith"

There seems to be some controversy regarding Christian apologetics or "defenders of the faith". Miller in his book devotes an entire chapter to this subject. The chapter discusses how some of the theology of ACIM differs from that of traditional Christianity. In that chapter the word "apologetics" is defined by the author:

"The word apologetics is a theologic term meaning "defense of the faith"."

We seem to have a bit of a problem here as I do not think that definition is used at WP Christian apologetics.

My dictionary defines the term "apologetic" as:

1) offered in defense or vindication *the apologetic writings of the early Christians*

2) offered by way of excuse or apology *an apologetic smile*

3) regretfully acknowledging fault or failure  : CONTRITE *replied in an apologetic tone*

The first definition seems to fit.

In this article it says:

"Making the case for the Christian faith—apologetics—has always been part of the Church's mission. Yet Christians sometimes have had different approaches to defending the faith..."

It appears to me that Miller is using the term to describe those who defend or protect the theology of traditional Christianity. Since we are using this author's book as the source I think we should defer to his definition. Perhaps the wikilink should not be used as it sends the reader into an article that is distracting to the point being made.

Thoughts?—Who123 13:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

After studying the WP article Christian apologetics, it does include the definition being used here:

In the Doctrinal Christian apologetics section it states "In this type of apologetics, various Christian doctrines are defended...".

Is there a way we can change the wikilink to point to this section? I will play with it.—Who123 13:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The question seems to be once again the approrpiateness of including Christian apologetics as criticism of the Course. The reason I would argue it is inappropriate is because the Course is not an attempt to revise, reedit or stake claim to Christianity. (reference?) The Course is a different path altogether. As I argued earlier, Christian apologetics belongs no more in a critical assessment of the Course than it does in criticizing Islam, Church of Latter Day Saints, or any other belief system. The Course's use of "Christian" terminology is the only commonality between the Course and the traditional faith and this merely speaks to the universality of the language and both paths' personifications of the historical figure, Jesus.

I understand your concern in that as far as the Course by itself, it is not a criticism. In reading the Course, it is Christian. ACIM is written in the first person with multiple references to the historical Jesus. Some of the theology is different from traditional Christianity. It is criticized by traditional Christians for both the theological differences and the authorship. I think that this is legitimate. Thoughts?—Who123 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to the article

It now says: quote A Course in Miracles (ACIM), sometimes referred to as the Course, is a book of "spiritual psychotherapy" or spiritual transformation that has spawned a religious movement. It was co-written by Helen Schucman and William Thetford. It is asserted the actual origin was dictation from a divine source through a form of channeling that Helen Schucman referred to as inner dictation.

Since it was first released to the public between 1973 and 1975 over 1.5 million copies have sold worldwide in 15 different languages. [1] It is written in Christian terminology, but some of the teachings of the Course are inconsistent with commonly-accepted Christian beliefs. Forgiveness is its central teaching. The great majority of the book is now in the public domain. unquote

It should say:

quote A Course In Miracles (commonly abbreviated as: ACIM, sometimes referred to as the Course), in form is a self-study program in what might be called "spiritual psychotherapy, or spiritual transoformation. While the Course explicitly states that: "It is not intented to become the basis for another cult."(Preface p. viii), there can be little doubt that some are using the book in a way to form what appear to be new semi-religious movements. The book was produced in a collaboration by Dr. Helen Schucman and William Thetford, Ph.D. professors of psychology who worked at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons at the time of these events. Helen recorded the material in a process she referred to as "inner dictation," perhaps a form of what is commonly known as "channeling." Thetford assisted mostly by typing out Helen's shorthand notes as she read them out loud to him.

Since it was first published in 1976 it has sold over 1.5 million copies worldwide in 15 different languages. [1] The Course uses Christian terminology in numerous instances, but provides explanation of such terminology which is not in line with main stream Christian terminology. Forgiveness is the central teaching. Due to a recent court ruling, an early version of the Course, which was circulated in a small circle without a copyright claim, is now considered to be in the public domain, but the present second edition from the original publishers, which is commonly known as "the Course" is not as such, because subsequent corrections and enhancements were satisfactorily protected by copyright. unquote

My suggested correction here conveys the same information, with the main difference being that it is historically accurate. The original text presented here was inaccurate on many levels. Example: to say that the source of Helen's "inner dictation" (Jesus) was "divine" mixes apples and organges, for the notion that Jesus is divine is typically a Christian concept, while in the Course this is absolutely not the case, and Jesus presents us as our "elder brother" and emphasizes that there is nothing he has and we don't.

The rest of the article is similarly flawed, because it evidently gets a lot of contribution from parties who have an axe to grind, rather than from sources representing the Course, and who actually represent what it says. Unfortunately a situation such as this with a lot of potential for controversy, may be an example of where the Wikipedia model fails, without a firm editorial hand. Vliscony 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not studied the recent changes but the introduction has had a lot of work by multiple editors. Hopefully the recent changes address your concerns. Although the Course does present Jesus as our "elder brother" it also presents Jesus as divine as it does you and I.

I do not understand your second paragraph. If there is specific material that you think is flawed either correct and cite it or present it for discussion.—Who123 19:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of edits

I have been doing some editing of this article. I was going to wait until I got the Complete Course, but this has gone on too long, so I have some other sources and am going to start with these and add info or sources where appropriate. I am starting with the Hanegraff book. I welcome any comments as always. JChap2007 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD notice

Wasn't this article nominated for deletion and kept? I cannot find the archived AfD discussion. If it was, we should put the AfD keep notice at the top of the talk page. JChap2007 04:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles (book) was AfD'ed. One editor used an edit summary indicating they were nominating the article for speedy deletion [3], but in fact only deleted a section. -Will Beback 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Tags

The article had 2 tags: {{ActiveDiscuss}} {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} Recently, another tag was added: {{NPOV}}

I think the 3rd tag just "overtags" the article. The first tag already says: "Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, biased...". The 3rd tag is therefore redundant. In addition the NPOV refers to discussion on the talk page and there is none. Although the article stills needs work, I do not find that there is a problem with the neutrality of the article.

For both of the reasons above, I will remove the additional tag.—Who123 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide me with a cite to WP policy where it discusses "overtagging." Articles should have as many tags as are necessary to alert editors/readers to problems with the article, and there are a lot with this one. As the article reads now, it reads like it is trying to convert people to ACIM. Some of the many, many examples:

A Course in Miracles, however, is not like any educational course. Its goals are profoundly different.

A Course in Miracles is deeply psychological. It contains a remarkably extensive and intricate theory of the mind

These passages are not balanced by any criticism. Once this has been done the tags can be removed. Note that the NPOV tag says that neutrality is disputed. I am disputing it and I know that there are other experienced editors and admins on the project who have serious neutrality problems with this version of the article as well. The {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag does not provide a strong enough warning to readers who are expecting an encyclopedia article and find themselves reading a tract. JChap2007 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Full of quotes?

Why does a large portion of this article consist of quotes of other people's assessment of the book/course/whatever? For example, "Basic tenets" has 2 screens worth of quotes cut/pasted from other author's books. Instead, it should just say "the basic tenets of ACIM are X, Y and Z" and then provide a reference to these sources if necessary. This continues throughout the article. If you look at other book articles (ie, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health or A People's History of the United States) they don't include huge chunks of content from other people's summary of the text. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about the book, not a book report of other people's writing on the book. Not a dog 15:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've just started trying to improve the poor state of this article. Feel free to pitch in. JChap2007 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. My main point is that it isn't necessary to quote large portions of the sources. It is sufficient to say "X says Y about ACIM" and then provide the citation. We don't need to provide the actual quote. This article is not supposed to be a collection of quotes of primary sources. Not a dog 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), the primary source here is ACIM itself. The other works are secondary sources. WP allows both primary and secondary sources although secondary sources are generally preferred. I have ordered and received several of the books and am studying them in order to try to replace most of the primary quotes and uncited material. I think the article is much better than what it was but still needs work.—Who123 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I might have gotten my terminology wrong. All I'm saying is that an encyclopedia article about a book shouldn't be mostly lengthy quotes from other books describing the original book. Not a dog 12:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, very little of the article as it now stands is written in an encyclopedic fashion (as numerous editors have pointed out). I've done some research into the topic and the article also seems largely inaccurate as it spends a good deal of its time trying to convince the reader that ACIM is a form of Christianity. In fact, ACIM teaches that Christ is not the only son of God and that his crucifixion did not redeem humankind's sin. In fact, it seems more based on eastern religion, but put into a Western historical context. We really don't need to either convince the reader that it is Christian or try to convince him that it is a heresy or make any judgment on it whatsoever. All we need to do is relate the basic facts about the topic. This article does not do that. JChap2007 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This reads like some kind of personal testimony or persuasive essay on what ACIM is. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about the book. Not a dog 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

<== I see many of the long quotes from the primary source have been trimmed. The article has been improved as a result. Not a dog 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ActiveDiscuss tag

I noticed that Who123 (talk · contribs) changed the ActiveDiscuss tag to include the directive to first discuss edits; I changed it back to the standard tag. I don't think such a change to that standard tag is appropriate nor necessary. Seems the WP:BRD cycle should be sufficient. Also, if that change was prompted by my recent trimming of certain sections (as suggested by Who123 above when my edits were reverted), I submit that my changes weren't at all in reaction to or characterized as "disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable" content. I'm just trying to make the content here encyclopedic. I'm not adding or removing anything controversial. Not a dog 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The addition to the ActiveDiscuss tag simply makes it more clear what is already here. The ActiveDiscuss tag states: "Please read talk page discussion before making substantial changes." When one reads the talk page the first item is the Controversial tag which states: "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." The WP:BRD guideline does not apply when these two tags are in place. You are making substantial changes without discussion first. The Controversial tag simply says that: "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute."

Please define "encyclopedic" and point precisely to the WP policy that defines the material that you changed as not "encyclopedic".

There has been a great deal of conflict and edit wars here over the past 6 weeks and it does not help if substantial changes are made without discussion particularly when the material is disputed. I am reverting the article to a point prior to the disputed substantial changes.

—Who123 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of discussion is necessary? JChap agrees with my edits. You don't. Further, you have not explained what actually is "disputable" about the material I trimmed. You have not provided a justification for why mention of the psychological or enlightenment aspect should be mentioned twice in teh same section, or why it should have lenghty quotes alonside the citations. You have not explained why first person testimonial statements such as "Our perception changes so that we no longer see ourselves as separate. We awaken from this illusion to who we really are" belong in an encyclopedia article. The default should not necessarily be status quo. Just becuase you added the content doesn't mean it should remain. You are reverting without actually addressing the substance of my changes. Not a dog 21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And please don't revert other edits that don't fall within your policy here - such as adding & cleaning up criticisms. Not a dog 21:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict - You ask, "What kind of discussion is necessary?" Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. In particular:

"First step: Talk to the other parties involved

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies."

Having one other editor agree with you does nor constitute a discussion. I dispute your making substantial changes without discussing it as the tags direct. I suggest that if you have problems with the section that we discuss these before deleting material. You are making substantial changes without discussing them here first. Please stop doing this and engage in rational discussion.—Who123 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine - twice now I've asked you to address the content of my edits and explain how Ithey made the article "worse." For example: [4], [5], [6]. Tell me how these edits worsen the article, and justify the inclusion of the content removed/condensed. Not a dog 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict - I have spent weeks purchasing source material, studying it, outlining it, and finally adding it to the article with sourcing and citation. When the material is properly sourced and cited I believe the burden is on you to initiate discussion before deleting it. I ask you to leave it as it was and let us work together by beginning a discussion on it to improve it.—Who123 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

that's great you've done your research. but just because something is cited and looks pretty doesn't mean it gets special protection. this is a wiki. if you want the fruits of your labor to remain unadulterated, create a webpage somewhere. Not a dog 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not every change needs to be discussed. This is a freakin' wiki for pete's sake. As the article stands now it is complete bollocks. It needs serious revision. Stop edit warring and let Not a dog make these changes. Guy thought we should just delete the whole thing and start over. I now think he was right. JChap2007 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict - The tags direct that every "substantial" change should be discussed first. I think this is particularly important if there is a dispute. Yes, this is WP and we should be able to engage in logical discussion on controversial articles. I do not agree that as the article stands now it is complete bollocks. I agree that it needs improvement and the article has been undergoing gradual improvement. I am not edit warring. I am restoring the article to the state it was in before undiscussed (and now disputed) substantial changes were made. I do not agree with deleting the article and starting over. Too much work has been put into this by many editors.—Who123 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the add/removal of controversial content (such as "ACIM is a load of crap") with general edits for brevity, clarity and tone. That's what I'm doing - I'm trimming the fat to make the article leaner. These are not controversial. Not a dog 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making substantial changes without discussion.—Who123 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that I left a message yesterday called "Full of quotes?" airing my concern. An editor agreed and suggested I make changes. So I did. That's how this wonderful Wikipedia works. Meanwhile, you continue to point out that I've made changes without discussing them (which I'm concerned actually means "without your approval"), yet you haven't actually replied to my request for you to defend the reverts and engage in just such a discussion. Not a dog 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Look, I added a tag saying you cannot change the article. That means you cannot change the article." Give me a break. You are also assuming that this is somehow the "preferred version" of the article. As you know, this assumption is extremely dubious and has been contested by several editors. Also, I've read up on ACIM and now know that the article is completely misleading. As you also know, edit warring (which is what you are doing by serially reverting Not a dog's edits, even those that are merely style changes, in their entirety) to protect false content can lead to serious consequences. Please stop this now. JChap2007 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the tags. The tags are there to try to prevent edit warring. They are being ignored. I am not assuming that this is somehow the "preferred version" of the article. I am asking that the instructions on the tags be followed particularly when there is a conflict. I disagree with you that the article is completely misleading. I am not edit warring. I am restoring the article to the state it was in before substantial changes (now disputed) were made without discussion. I do not believe the content is false. Please do not make threats and please begin engaging in logical discussion.—Who123 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, seems like Who123 is trying to take ownership of this article. Not a dog 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to take ownership of this article. I am simply asking that the guidelines on the tags be followed. It appears to me that the two of you are ganging up on me.—Who123 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Not a dog 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's ganging up on anybody. We are just trying to improve the article. Just so you know, editors who accuse others of "ganging up" on them are usually trying to edit tendentiously. JChap2007 23:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this include the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule?—Who123 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea of WP:IAR here. And if you try to ignore the three-revert rule, you'll be blocked. JChap2007 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the WP:IAR here either. Please stop making threats and let us engage in discussion.—Who123 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so discuss below. JChap2007 23:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

August 25 edits

These three edits should be reinstated, as they improve the article by reducing redundancy, unencyclopedic tone, and reliance on large block quotes which add unnecessary length: [7], [8], [9]. Discuss. Not a dog 22:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Please understand that I have a life outside of WP. I have taken too much time from the rest of my life today for the exchanges above. I will respond as soon as I can which should be by the end of this weekend, if not before.—Who123 23:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, well, you'll noticed I asked you to discuss above at 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC) [10]. And, to be clear, its not necessarily your opinion that determines whether such edits are acceptable. Hope you get a chance to chime in. Not a dog 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I do have a life outside of WP. I simply have not had time to respond to your earlier request. Your comments above seem to indicate that you are not really interested in discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes:

Second step: Disengage for a while

A simple solution to a dispute is to stop having it — by leaving the article and/or bringing in an outside editor. This is particularly helpful when disputing with new users as it gives them a chance to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policy and culture. Focus your contributions on another article where you can make constructive progress. Avoid going back to the page of dispute. Respond to questions about it on your user talk page and direct the questioner to take their issues to the article talk page to keep all relevant discussion in one place.

Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again.

—Who123 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't quote policy. just link to it if you think it is important (a similar problem with the article). Not a dog 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, if you have time to quote policy and edit war, you have time to discuss the issues with the article (as Who123 has been repeatedly invited to do). JChap2007 23:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Article size

There has been a concern expressed about article size. Please see: Wikipedia:Article size. I would like to draw attention to these aspects of the article:

In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems. With the advent of the section editing feature, and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles exist which are over 32 KB of total text.

No need for haste

Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.

—Who123 19:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you continue to deflect my pleas for you to discuss the substance of my changes/concerns by pasting all kinds of lenthy sections of policy, which, combined with your imposition of requiring any change be discussed first, concerns me as it regards to issues of WP:OWN and WP:WL. Anyway, I've never expressed concern about the entire article's size, but only in relation to hesitations about the Psychology & Tenets sections noted above: I'm not at all convinced that lenghty quotes from ACIM are appropriate here. This also involves issues of WP:QUOTE and WP:NPS. Care to address this substantively? Not a dog 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You were the one that brought up your concern about Wikipedia:Article size. I tried to respond to this concern about article size even though I am trying to take a wikibreak. It seems that each time I try to answer a concern of yours you bring up two or three more that take me further and further away from your initial concern. If article size is not a concern of yours then please do not bring it up.—Who123 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My main point is that I'm concerned about large quotes, and then you just paste a bunch of policy, without actually discussing, which is what you lobbied so passionately for above. You are not discussing any of my suggestions, just throwing policy quotes in my face in an attempt to ensure your work isn't changed in the article. That hardly seems to be in the best interest of this article. We're trying to create a good encyclopedia article.

And if you're trying to take a wikibreak, then stop logging onto the site (and accusing me of being a sockpuppet just becuase you think I'm learning policies too quickly). Not a dog 17:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

I reverted this link removal [11]. She is discussed in the article, and seems like an appropriate link for additional info. Not sure why editors keep wanting to remove this particular link. Not a dog 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to archive?

It appears that it is time to archive again. I am prepared to do this leaving anything that appears to be under active discussion or that are marked for not archiving. Thoughts?—Who123 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just do it. Not a dog 20:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)